From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Caldwell v. the City of New York

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Feb 10, 1914
104 N.E. 126 (N.Y. 1914)

Opinion

Argued January 20, 1914

Decided February 10, 1914

Arthur D. Truax and George J. McDonnell for appellant.

Archibald R. Watson, Corporation Counsel ( Terence Farley and Clarence L. Barber of counsel), for respondent.


It is impossible for this court to pass upon the important questions of law involved in this case unless they shall be brought up hereafter by the defendant's appeal from a judgment of affirmance against him after a new trial conducted in accordance with the opinion of the Appellate Division. We are obliged to dismiss the present appeal upon the authority of Wright v. Smith ( 209 N.Y. 249), because there was an appeal to the Appellate Division from an order denying a motion for a new trial as well as an appeal from the judgment; and while the judgment was reversed the order of reversal does not show an affirmance so far as the facts were concerned. This is essential to give the Court of Appeals jurisdiction upon an appeal of this character.

The appeal should be dismissed, with costs.

WILLARD BARTLETT, Ch. J., WERNER, CHASE, COLLIN, CUDDEBACK and HOGAN, JJ., concur; MILLER, J., not sitting.

Appeal dismissed.


Summaries of

Caldwell v. the City of New York

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Feb 10, 1914
104 N.E. 126 (N.Y. 1914)
Case details for

Caldwell v. the City of New York

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES H. CALDWELL, Appellant, v . THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Feb 10, 1914

Citations

104 N.E. 126 (N.Y. 1914)
104 N.E. 126

Citing Cases

People v. Redmond

The rule in criminal cases, and in civil cases involving a motion and an order for a new trial, was, prior to…